Hacker News Reader

Comment by sbelskie | Hacker News Reader

Interesting thread by Matt Darling of Niskansen that is pretty critical of the study design and data quality of this and other similar papers.

https://mobile.twitter.com/besttrousers/status/1454150695196...

View on HN

> Here's an model explaining the "Gender Equality Paradox" that doesn't rely on the crutch of assuming different preferences. Women pay some fixed cost for being in the labor market, in general. Perhaps due to discrimination, perhaps to something else. As such less likely to pursue a costly STEM education in college. However, they become more likely to pursue a STEM education as the returns increase. Women respond to incentives. The bigger the non-service sector of the economy, the more income there is to gain from a STEM education. As it gets higher (which tends to be the case in less developed countries) more women enter STEM programs. In developed countries the STEM premium is lower (Someone in a service job like a lawyer or accountant will do just fine).

This fits the data we have available, doesn't require that we assume our conclusion (we just assume women respond to incentives), and is able to help explain other phemonena. It's got a lot of features we want in a good model!

- Matt Darling

Edit: It seems like he assumes some "fixed cost" in order to counter the finding that women are less likely to pursue STEM education.

Is there something I am missing?

If you start with a motivated bias against any given hypothesis, in a social science field where the empirical evidence is sort of messy, you can always rationalize away the evidence supporting that hypothesis.

This is sort of a double whammy since not only are the social sciences messy enough that it’s easier to get away with that sort of thing, but they always have been chock full of hypotheses that lots of people have motivated biases against.

It's really frustrating to watch this play out. There should be a disclaimer in the social sciences with these sorts of studies.

Disclaimer: "I believe that nurture, rather than nature, plays a larger role, generally speaking, in the development of an individual's occupational aspirations", or vice versa.

"women will pursue STEM careers if they paid sufficiently more than other jobs, but when the pay is the same they choose service jobs" is not really any different from saying "women prefer service jobs"

Anything that influences a decision can be reframed as a cost or incentive, but without actually identifying the cost nothing is being explained.

> As such less likely to pursue a costly STEM education in college. However, they become more likely to pursue a STEM education as the returns increase.

Is Matt Darling aware that in most European countries university education is (financially speaking) free or extremely low cost? And said cost is about the same no matter what you study?

Edit to make it more clear: As far as I know crushing student debt is an US and UK thing. Not continental Europe. I have no idea how things go outside US/Europe though.

Are you assuming that all costs are financial?

(As a possible example, the only European countries with higher percentages of tertiary education than the US in the 25-34 age group are Norway, Ireland, Luxembourg, Lithuania, and Russia. I suppose that only 28% of Germans are interested in tertiary education, as opposed to 49% in Norway and Ireland. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tertiary_...)

> Are you assuming that all costs are financial?

I'm assuming he's assuming that... :)

Why?

In the sentence:

"Women pay some fixed cost for being in the labor market, in general. Perhaps due to discrimination, perhaps to something else"

It seems pretty clear to me he does not mean just financial.

I think the more "developing" or "relatively recenylu developed" nations who have university infastructure are more likely to go with the more European "paid to be a student if you can pass the gatekeeping exams".

It has less to do with any ideology and more a combination of mathematics and pragmatism. Namely an insufficient number of people who could afford even free college from the opportunity cost of not working full time. Even if the economy advanced enough that they could technically go to a more American model.

This is meant to be broad brush "first principles reasoning" and includes many disparate nations and situations. Some may also have a sufficient percentage from traditionally priveledged strata who could afford it. Often families who were traditional bureaucratic, military, or priestly occupations.

> the more European "paid to be a student if you can pass the gatekeeping exams".

I don't think it goes up to "paid to be a student" most of the time. If you're not lucky enough to have local universities on your chosen subject you still have to pay for (possibly cheap student) lodging. Said gatekeeping exams may also be an extra cost if you need to pay someone to prepare for them.

However, the financial burden overall is much smaller.

So are they saying the costs for pursuing those careers are higher for girls than they are for boys, in countries with greater women's empowerment?

I’m not sure he assuming some “fixed cost” so much as pointing out (or at least arguing) that such a model explains the data as well the “just so” conclusion. Additionally, he is suggesting that such a model, in which agents respond to incentives rather than just have “true” preferences is stronger.

I think this is just a redefinition into a bucket term. Social factors such as stigma, difficulty in child-rearing, and workplace discrimination can all be included in such a fixed cost or incentive model

The argument is that when presented with few attractive alternatives, they simply overcome these hurdles.

Nice theory, but this assumes that the relative return from a STEM education is higher in less developed countries. Any other tests of that hypothesis?

Is there any study to back his claim? Just assuming your conclusion doesn't cut it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com